1. Information Architecture WG: Report of the Spring 2004 Meeting May 13, 2004 Dan Crichton, NASA/JPL

2. Executive Summary The Information Architecture White Book was discussed and extensively reviewed. This included identifying updates and changes for moving towards a red book. In addition, updates were identified as a result of several other parallel meetings and discussions that members participated in. The MOIMS Packaging and Registries WG and IAWG discussed the relationship between packaging and information architecture The IAWG participated in a joint presentation with MOIMS by ESA (Critical Software) on their reference architecture work for building ground systems. A discussion occurred on Grid Computing and its relationship to information architecture

3. Goals of WG 1.Define a reference end-to-end space information architecture for interoperability and cross-support that encompasses both flight and ground data system operations and provides a common framework for use by standards and systems developers including a. standard functional components for information management b.definition of standard interfaces for information management c.standards in information representation d.standards in defining information processes 2.Define and leverage common methods for representing information architectural views; and 3.Address application layer information management issues including application protocols and data handling and ensure that they are dealt with in a clear and consistent way throughout the end-to-end system; and 4.Work with the SEA System Architecture WG to provide the Information Architecture elements for the Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (RASDS) and with the MOIMS WGs to develop the specific standard interfaces & protocols. Make recommendations to the other Working Groups and BoFs about architectural choices and options.

4. Deliverables of WG 1.Define how component and interface information standards within CCSDS fit into the Reference Architecture for Space Data Systems (RASDS); 2.Identify formal representation methods, tools and approaches that will permit design, modeling, and simulation of information architectural designs including collaboration with SAWG. 3.Write a CCSDS space information architecture recommendation that includes: a.a set of functional information infrastructure components; b.a set of information infrastructure interfaces for information management; c.a set of information descriptors that are capable of representing data across the mission lifecycle; d.a set of interfaces for cross support services, application program interfaces, and information management & access protocols.

5. Progress Achieved It was agreed that the white book is an excellent start, but requires some updates both to the data (chapter 2) and software architecture (chapter 3) sections. This includes updates from CNES, GSFC and JPL. Identification of work areas between MOIMS Information Packaging and Registries and SEA Information Architecture was achieved including definition of a process of how to work together. A discussion of the relationship between Grid Computing and Information Architecture identified overlaps and opportunities between the Global Grid Forum and CCSDS.

6. Near-Term Schedule Draft Information Architecture (February 2004) Finalize White Book (June 2004) Best Practices Document (June 2004) Reschedule: August 2004 NVO Position Paper (August 2004) Reschedule: October 2004 Red Book (October 2004) Reschedule: February 2005 Blue Book (February 2005) Reschedule: December 2005

7. Open Issues Few core technical issues exist with the information architecture. Largely, the white book needs to expand on some core concepts to better describe them. The Best Practices Document will focus on typical instantiations of the information architecture to better demonstrate alignment with the E2E ground/flight architecture. The packaging work occurring in MOIMS IPR needs to be validated by a prototype. JPL is working prototypes for the information architecture and will demonstrate how emerging standards can be tied to together to demonstrate the validity of both the architecture and the standards. This includes packaging. Support by agencies considered a risk item to achieving the goals. Several efforts are down stream from the architecture creating inconsistencies between efforts (Packaging, SANA, Registries, and Archives)

8. Action Items Send meeting notes, presentations and comments to IAWG –To: Info Arch WG Members –Due: Due May 31, 2004 Finalize updates to white book based on meeting comments –To: Info Arch WG Members –Due: Due June 2004 Develop draft best practices document for the information architecture –To: Info Arch WG Members –Due: August 2004 Validate information architecture and packaging approach via JPL DSMS prototype –To: Shames, SEA Chair –Due: October 2004

9. Resource Problems There may not be enough resource commitments from member agencies to achieve deliverables. ESA and CNES considered important stakeholders. Interest has been expressed by several people to be part of the IAWG.

10. Risk Management Update Agencies and projects implementing their own architectures and do not choose to coordinate or adopt any interoperable standards or reference architectures for managing and sharing information. Standards for interfaces and protocols for distributed services are still under development. Many lack consistency in core information architecture concepts. Often technologies are confused as de facto architectures (i.e. web services, etc) Languages and tools to be used in our work are still under development. Interest in X-Astro as a tool for capturing and modeling the information architecture in a RASDS compliant manner, however, X-Astro will not be released until July.

11. Cross Area WG / BOF Issues Need on-going coordination with MOIMS Information Packaging and Registries (IPR). Schedule and align meetings at Fall 2004 CCSDS meeting. Information architecture considered an important stakeholder in the SANA BOF Work with other WGs and BOFs to coordinate architectural choices Coordinate architectures within SEA groups (i.e. security architecture)

12. Resolutions to be Sent to CESG and Then to CMC None

13. New Working Items, New BOFs, etc. It was identified that we need to continue to monitor grid activities. A position paper aligning the information architecture with NVO will help to identify alignment issues.